PARODY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW  (IN THE CONTEXT OF EMERGING FASHION LAW)

Sarka Silhankova

doi:10.5937/zrpfn0-23399

Sarka Silhankova Masaryk University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfn0-23399

Keywords: European Law, parody, Intellectual Property Law, fashion law, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Hermes

Abstract

This article deals with the relationship between parody and intellectual property law. First, the author presents the concept of parody in European law. In this context, the CJEU judgment delivered in the case Deckmyn v. Vandersteen is extensively analyzed. In addition to discussing parody within the framework of copyright and trademark law, the author presents several cases from the emerging area of fashion law. As the CJEU has not ruled on any case concerning fashion law, the author mainly focuses on the United States case law. Most cases related to fashion law usually end in confidential agreements and out of court settlement. Yet, several cases were decided in national court proceedings. All these cases illustrate how parody is used ineverydaylife in the fashion world.

References

Decision

• Judgment Court of the Hague dated 4 May 2011. NADIA PLESNER JOENSEN, claimant, v. LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER SA, case number 389526/KG ZA 11-294 [online]. [cit. 5. 5. 19]. Available on: http://www.nadiaplesner.com/upl/website/simple-living--darfurnica1/VerdictEnglish.pdf

• Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 3 September 2014, Deckmyn v. Vandersteen. In Case C‑201/13. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=368150D79784A375E1812AB0900AE8A9?text=&docid=157281&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9417447#Footnote*

• Opinion of Advocate General delivered on 22 May 2014. Case C‑201/13. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152656&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9420552

• Registered Community Design number 000084223-0001. EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office. © EUIPO 1995-2019. [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available from: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/000084223-0001

• United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit dated 22 December 2016. LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MY OTHER BAG, INC., Defendant-Appellee, case number 16-241-cv [online]. [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available on: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1762991.html

• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dated 2007. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, case number 507 F.3d 252 [online]. [cit. 5. 5. 19]. Available on: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/louisvuitton.pdf

Legal framework

• Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1566678022911&uri=CELEX%3A32001L0029

• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1567024746509&uri=CELEX:32017R1001

Articles

• Šilhánková, Šárka. Louis Vuitton As A Bully Brand. In: European Legal Studies and Research. International Conference of PhD Students In Law. Timisoara: Faculty of West University of Timisoara, 2019, s. 372-377. ISSN 2066-6403.

• Chanel Settled its Lawsuit Over „Parody“ Tee, Diesl to Sue? THE FASHION LAW [online]. TFL LLC, © 2012-2019 [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available from: http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/chanel-settled-its-lawsuit-over-parody-tee-diesel-to-sue